Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2025

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I read this amendment carefully, and what I saw in this amendment and the policy choices that it engages have nothing to do with what I just heard from the proponent of this amendment, so let me deal with the merits of this amendment as it stands and as it relates specifically to the Department of Defense.

This amendment in that context is just another in a long line of initiatives by my colleagues to drive out of the Department of Defense any concern for, much less mention of, anything bearing the name of or in any way implicating the dreaded phrase ``climate change.''

Based on this amendment, this apparently includes any reference to consideration of greenhouse gas emissions or extreme weather risks in Federal procurement. All this is despite the fact that the DOD itself is eyes wide open to the realities of climate change, as we have seen repeatedly in this debate.

Let's unpack the real amendment here and ask ourselves what it actually does. Very directly, first of all, this amendment would defund any requirement by DOD that greenhouse gas emissions or climate-related risk be disclosed by companies doing business with the Department of Defense.

It is nothing new to utilize Federal procurement to address broader concerns, especially when the largest procurement office in the Federal Government is the Department of Defense. Therefore, the only real conclusion to be reached from the amendment is that greenhouse gas emissions and climate risks are not broader concerns, nor are they concerns, certainly, to the Department of Defense. In fact, for the Department of Defense in Federal Government contracting to look at this amendment, those can't be factored in at all. They can't even be known.

Let's just take a couple of examples, and let's assume everything else. Let's take out of this argument the false argument that somehow it is going to detract from quality, cost, quantity. Let's equalize that, which is all part of Federal procurement anyway. Let's just look at the amendment itself with DOD requirements in some real examples.

Let's take an example. One proposed contractor is utilizing the dirtiest, largest emitting, most unsustainable forms of energy for a product while the other--quality, quantity, productivity, everything else equal--has invested in clean energy consistent with international emission targets, not to mention our own targets.

Should we factor that in at all in Federal procurement? Should we even know that? Should we effectively penalize the company that is doing the right thing and incentivize the company that is not? I think the answer is that we should know it, and we should factor it in.

Let's take another example. One contractor has fully disclosed any risks of extreme weather conditions on its business model, its financial stability, its climate-related resilience preparedness, and the continuity and predictability of operations on key supply chain components, while the other has ignored the obvious concerns that may lead to disruption of key components and higher costs, unexpected costs in the procurement cycle, and fiscal insolvency.

Should we factor that in? Should we even know it in Federal procurement? I think the answer is yes.

Clearly, in both instances, realistic and prudent defense procurement, not to mention compelling national policy, says yes.

This amendment, at the end of the day, is grounded in the incorrect assumption that a strong defense industrial base is fundamentally incompatible with cleaner, sustainable energy and climate resiliency. That is not correct. We know that, and the Department of Defense knows that.

The Department of Defense, moreover, knows that if we don't address climate-related risk around the world in all parts of its operations, from operations to readiness to procurement, it faces greater risks. Let's let the Department of Defense address these issues without weighing in with denial, diversion, and fear-mongering.

Mr. Chair, I urge that we oppose this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, again, let's read the amendment. There is no mention in this amendment of this mysterious company. There is no commitment by the Department of Defense to use a specific company. This is a matter of disclosure. These companies have to disclose this information to the Department of Defense.

This is also still a proposed rule, and certainly there is enough time in the process for us to carry out any concerns over directed sole sourcing or national security, which I think is just a red herring.

Of course, this is about climate change. Of course, this is about a continued effort to deny climate change.

Mr. Chair, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CASE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source